Ureru Net Advertising Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Attempt to Stifle Free Speech
“If you restrict it to phone cancellations, the cancellation rate will go down.”
How far is it acceptable to speak on social media?
The online world today is caught between freedom of speech and protection of privacy and personal rights. On October 23, former ZOZO executive and investor Shintaro Tabata was prosecuted at home for insult over a social media comment calling someone incompetent, sparking debate over the vague standards for such cases.
Amid this debate, another symbolic civil lawsuit is underway. A Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth-listed, up-and-coming internet advertising company is engaged in a protracted legal battle with one of the media operators who criticized it online. Analysis of court documents obtained by FRIDAY Digital reveals new issues surrounding online speech.
The conflict began with an article published by the web media outlet Suan, which covers the startup industry. The article’s headline read:
“Among 140 major D2C e-commerce companies, 90 only allow cancellations via phone. Behind this, a consultant spreads the notion that limiting to phone cancellations lowers the cancellation rate.” (Published June 12, 2023)
The article highlighted remarks made by Koichi Leo Kato, CEO of Ureru Net Advertising (now Ureru Net Advertising Group Inc., hereafter “Ureru”), in a YouTube video released in 2022:
“Online users dislike phone calls, so limiting cancellations to phone only will lower the cancellation rate.”
The article questioned whether this constituted intentionally reducing customer convenience, which triggered the legal battle between Ureru and A, one of the operators of Suan. During the process, certain tactics used by Ureru have raised questions in court about the rules of conduct in the online world.
What exactly is happening in the courtroom?
Ureru has rapidly grown in the D2C support field and went public on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth market in October 2023. For the fiscal year ending July 2025, the company reported sales of ¥1.567 billion. CEO Kato, nicknamed the “Wizard of Response,” is a well-known figure in the industry. He runs his own YouTube channel, Ureru Net Advertising Group Inc. [Koichi Leo Kato D2C Channel], where he shares insights on online advertising as an influencer.
“If you don’t delete it, 100,000 yen per day.”
On March 12, 2024, the company filed a lawsuit against A, claiming that the Suan article had defamed it. On the same day, it posted a press release on its website stating:
“Civil lawsuit and criminal complaint against A, also known as SUAN” (A’s real name was used).
The company also sent the release to numerous media outlets. Until then, A had operated anonymously, but the press release publicly revealed A’s real name, multiple photos including A’s face and workplace exterior, and detailed A’s education and career.
The defamation lawsuit ended with Ureru losing both at the Tokyo District Court (first instance, December 2024) and the Tokyo High Court (appeal, July 2025).
In response, A acted. Claiming infringement of personal rights, A filed a provisional injunction with the Tokyo District Court demanding deletion of the press release.
A provisional injunction is an emergency court measure used when a formal trial would take too long, allowing the court to order the alleged infringer to temporarily halt the violation.
On November 14, 2024, the court accepted the request and ordered Ureru to remove A’s personal name, photos, and other personal information.
However, Ureru did not immediately comply. A then pursued a further measure called indirect enforcement, which imposes a financial penalty to compel compliance.
Following this, on December 20, 2024, the Tokyo District Court issued the following order against Ureru:
“If the obligation is not fulfilled, the obligor (Ureru) shall pay the obligee (A) an amount at the rate of 100,000 yen per day” (from the court decision).
In other words, a penalty of 100,000 yen per day if not deleted was imposed on Ureru.
Ureru filed an objection (preservation objection) to the provisional injunction, but on February 27, 2025, the court rejected it. The court decision also commented on the company’s motives for publishing the press release.
Intended to suppress freedom of expression
“The main purpose of the obligor (Ureru Net Advertising Co., Ltd.) in publicly disclosing the facts of this case (i.e., that A is an operator of Suan) in the relevant articles (press release) was to publish the name and attributes of the Suan operator, who had previously engaged in anonymous expressive activities, on the internet without the obligee’s (A’s) consent. This caused psychological burdens by disturbing the obligee’s private life and was intended to intimidate and suppress the obligee’s freedom of expression on Suan. It is reasonable to recognize this purpose” (from the court decision).
In parallel with filing an objection, Ureru claimed to have deleted the content regarding A, which was the subject of the provisional injunction (allegedly deleted on January 6, 2025).
However, accessing the URL of the supposedly deleted press release automatically redirected users to another website containing the same content. In other words, the deleted personal information remained accessible.
According to A’s investigation, the redirect site was hosted on an anonymous overseas server with hidden ownership information. Ureru argued in a written submission:
“This website appeared by chance in Google search results when the plaintiff (CEO Koichi Leo Kato) searched for the defendant’s name (A), and it is unknown who manages this website” (Ureru’s written submission).
The redirect started on February 5, 2025. According to Ureru, it was stopped on March 26, 2025. A, however, argued that they confirmed the removal on their home PC on July 11, 2025, showing a discrepancy between the parties.
A considered this act a failure to comply with the deletion order. Based on the indirect enforcement decision, A requested payment of the daily 100,000-yen penalty, totaling over 17 million yen across two applications, and applied to the court for garnishment of Ureru’s funds.
On March 18, 2025, the Fukuoka District Court approved the first application and ordered garnishment of about 6.3 million yen from Ureru’s bank account. On July 22, 2025, the second application was approved, adding about 11.3 million yen in bank garnishment.
Ureru filed a claim objection lawsuit on March 28, 2025 (for the second garnishment, filed August 1, 2025) contesting the garnishments. The legal battle has now entered a new stage, focusing on whether the garnished funds must be paid.
In Part 2, the coverage details the redirect action by Ureru and reports on the specific interactions between both parties in court.
